不同干预方式对男男性行为者的影响比较  

Impact of different intervention means on men who have sex with men

作　　者：冯艳洁[1] 王岚[1] 董俊善[1] 何卫社[2] 何金波 范军 朱小凤 蒋宁 李奇[4,5] 曹宁校 

机构地区：[1]秦皇岛市疾病预防控制中心,河北秦皇岛066000 [2]廊坊市人民医院,河北廊坊065000 [3]北戴河区疾病预防控制中心,河北秦皇岛066100 [4]中国医学科学院皮肤病医院 [5]中国疾病预防控制中心性病控制中心,南京210042

出　　处：《中国性科学》2015年第4期117-123,共7页Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality

摘　　要：目的:通过不同干预方式对MSM知识行为影响分析了解干预方式在人群中的作用,提出干预方式的完善和合理应用建议。方法:2009年至2012年连续4年采用自愿招募和滚雪球的方法,通过VCT门诊和开展外展干预活动对第1次接受艾滋病咨询检测的MSM进行问卷调查和血清学检测。将未接受过任何干预措施的设为未干预组,仅参与过同伴教育活动者则为同伴教育组,仅接受过安全套宣传和发放以及艾滋病咨询与检测者为宣教检测组,既接受过安全套宣传和发放以及艾滋病咨询与检测又参与过同伴教育活动者为综合干预组分别对收集信息进行分类分析。结果:1043例MSM中未干预组351例,同伴教育组74例,宣教检测组218例,综合干预组400例。各组年龄分布有差异P=0.033,同伴教育组的平均年龄较低。对于艾滋病知识而言,干预能够提高知识水平,尤其以综合干预组和宣教检测组为高,知识知晓率分别达到92.0%和91.3%。近半年内有同性性行为的人数综合干预组达到90.0%,宣教检测组为85.8%、同伴教育组为83.8%、未干预组为82.3%,存在显著差异(P=0.022)。最近1次同性肛交行为安全套使用和半年内使用频率各组间均存在显著差异(P<0.015)。最近1次同性肛交综合干预组安全套使用明显高于未干预组(P=0.001)。综合干预和宣教检测组在近6个月的同性肛交中安全套使用频率高于未干预组(P=0.004,P=0.034)。近6个月同性商业性性行为中安全套使用频率综合干预组高于未干预组(P=0.038)。最近1次与异性发生性行为时安全套的使用宣教检测组高于综合干预、同伴教育和未干预组(P=0.049,P=0.029,P=0.012)。近1年内在性病诊断治疗方面各组没有差异,血清学梅毒、HIV、HCV检测结果各组间也无差异。结论:需要加强同伴教育员的能力和专业性。专业机构和社区活动共同干预对于MSM人群的安全意识提高和重视性行为安�Objectives： To understand the effect of intervention means through impact analysis of different intervention means to the knowledge and behavior of MSM population,and make a reasonable suggestion for intervention means. Methods： Voluntary recruitment and snowball method was adopted in four consecutive years from2009 to 2012,and questionnaire investigation and serological detection was conducted by VCT clinics and outreach service among MSM accepted HIV counseling and testing for the first time. All the attendees were divided into four groups,including the non- intervention group without any intervention means（ NIG）,the peer- education group only involved in peer education（ PEG）,the health education and testing group with both condom promotion as well as VCT（ PTG）,and the comprehensive group with three kinds of intervention means above（ CIG）. The information of each group was collected and analyzed respectively. Results： In 1043 attendees,there were 351 cases of NIG,74 cases of PEG,218 cases of PTG and 400 cases of CIG. There was statistical difference between age distribution of four groups（ P = 0. 033）; the average age of the PEG was lower than that of other groups. Intervention improved the level of HIV / AIDS knowledge,especially in CIG and PTG. The awareness rates of AIDS knowledge were92. 0% and 91. 3% respectively. There was statistical difference between the cases of homosexual behavior among four groups（ P = 0. 022） ： the proportion of homosexual behavior in CIG was 90. 0%,85. 8% of PTG,83. 8% of PEG,and 82. 3% of NIG. There was significant difference of condom use with homosexual partners between four groups during the last anal sex and in the past six months（ P〈 0. 015）. The rate of condom use in CIG was significantly higher than that of NIG during the last sex episode（ P = 0. 001）. The rates of condom use in CIG and PTG was higher than that of NIG with homosexual anal sex in the past six months（ P = 0. 004,P = 0. 034）,and the rates in CIG was higher than th

关 键 词：男男性行为人群(MSM) 干预方法 知识 安全性行为 影响 

分 类 号：C913.14[经济管理]